9 ms·

And just because two words sound similar doesn't mean they have similar roots. The word for “dog” in the Australian Aboriginal language Mbabaram happens to be “

• schoen 10y ago
  There's a great list of these at https://web.archive.org/web/20070227031854/http://members.aol.com/yahyam/coincidence.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070227031854/http://members.ao...
  • zem 10y ago
    they're known as "false cognates" in linguistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate
  • ptaipale 10y ago
    This one btw doesn't include the one that is strangest to me: that Chinese for mom or momma is 妈妈 "mama" and pop, pappa is 爸爸 "baba".
    • rvense 10y ago
      These are nearly universal AFAIK. I've heard stipulated a link between this and the fact that these are the first sounds a child will learn.
      • riffraff 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa
      • otabdeveloper1 10y ago
        > these are the first sounds a child will learn. Not really, no. 'Gaga' or 'kaka' are just as easy yet aren't universal. The mystery is not solved. (Could be just areal effects, for example.)
        • talideon 10y ago
          Easy for an adult, not so easy for a baby. Bilabial and coronal sounds don't take much tongue dexterity: you just need to be able to open/close your lips and leave your tongue in its natural resting position respectively to produce them. Velar sounds, on the other hand, require you to flex the middle of your tongue to touch your palate, which is as significantly more difficult sound to produce. It's no coincidence that sounds like 'gaga' and 'kaka' tend to be associated with either more distant relatives or with defecation: the kid's going to be older when those things get introduced.
    • ricksplat 10y ago
      I always presumed these were universal because they are the easiest sounds for infants to make.
      • ricksplat 10y ago
        I'm not sure why that was downvoted. It's a reasonable assertion.
        • talideon 10y ago
          And correct, as it happens. Though long-running cultural associations with certain consonants (such as 'm', 'n' and 'b' and mother or grandmother, 'p' and 'd' with father or grandfather, &c.) to play a huge role in it too: the parents need to be culturally primed to mistake the babbling for actual half-formed words, and subsequently build that association in the child's mind in return.
          • ricksplat 10y ago
            Couldn't have said it better (obviously) myself. Thanks!
    • infinite8s 10y ago
      The 'ma' and 'pa' sounds are some of the easiest sounds to make by babies since they just require the lips and don't involve the tongue.
      • talideon 10y ago
        You might be interested in the article by Larry Trask linked to here: http://languagehat.com/trask-on-mama-and-papa/ http://languagehat.com/trask-on-mama-and-papa/
        • infinite8s 10y ago
          I'm not sure why I was downvoted - Larry Trask's article has the exact same explanation i gave above - mainly that the 'm' and 'p' sounds are the easiest consonant vocalizations that babies can do.
    • talideon 10y ago
      There's nothing even slightly strange about it. The terms are self-recapitulating because parents mistake children's babbling for first words. If anything, it'd be strange if they weren't the same. Take a read of this: http://languagehat.com/trask-on-mama-and-papa/ http://languagehat.com/trask-on-mama-and-papa/
      • ptaipale 10y ago
        Then why isn't aunt "gaga" in all languages?
        • talideon 10y ago
          Why would it be? What's your reasoning for expecting it to be? Did you read the paper linked to?
      • talideon 10y ago
        Addendum: in case anybody's wondering what I meant when I wrote "it'd be strange if they weren't the same", I was referring to the high probability of them being coincidentally the same or at least very similar.
    • prmph 10y ago
      What is also interesting is that certain words share similar literal constructions in unrelated languages. The best example I've always thought of is the verb "to understand". Picture standing under something; you get to know it better. In my native language Twi [1], the to understand is literally constructed as "to to sit under" I know of several other languages with very similar constructions. [1] http://www.omniglot.com/writing/twi.htm http://www.omniglot.com/writing/twi.htm
• mootothemax 10y ago
  Just to add to the fun, the etymology of the word "dog" itself is completely unknown. There's a single documented mention of the Old English "docga" - and then nothing. How this word took over pretty much well entirely from "hound" is a mystery. If that's not enough, the Polish word for dog - "pies" - has exactly the same issue! (and I believe, but can't say with any certainty, that other Slavic languages may have the same issue.) Edit: Oxford English's page on "dog" is paywalled off but still available in via Google's cache, a fascinating read if you have a spare 15 minutes: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jNMSJSGTptEJ:www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/56405+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pl&client=safari http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jNMSJSG...
  • jwilk 10y ago
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/p%D1%8Cs%D1%8A https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/p...